Justin Ben-Asher
Justin Ben-Asher represents clients in commercial disputes, including in complex multidistrict litigation and international arbitrations. His work spans the aerospace and defence, energy, construction, financial services, and insurance industries, among others.
His pro bono legal service includes representation of the City of New York, as well as housing and family court matters. He is a recipient of The Legal Aid Society’s Pro Bono Publico Award.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualifications
- New York
- New Jersey
- US District Court, Southern District of New York
- US District Court, District of New Jersey
- US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
- US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Education
- Harvard Law School (2011)
- Yale University (2006)
4 Contributions by Justin Ben-Asher
PRACTICE NOTES
Anti-suit injunctions supporting New York-seated international arbitration: US federal and New York state tests, comity considerations and relief
This Practice Note considers the availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration from New York courts.
LexisNexis® UK does not report citations to US judgments. Parties that have committed to arbitration may, once a dispute surfaces, reconsider that choice—particularly if one believes a court might deliver a more advantageous result. However, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) obliges courts to stay proceedings ‘brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration...until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement’, so long as the party seeking the stay has not ‘default in proceeding with such arbitration’ or otherwise relinquished its right to arbitrate (9 U.S.C. § 3; Katz v Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir. 2015)).
For years, US federal courts disagreed on whether, in the face of a valid arbitration agreement, a court should dismiss the case or simply stay it. The US Supreme Court has now addressed that divergence in Smith v Spizzirri, 601 U.S....
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Emergency and interim judicial measures supporting arbitration in New York: stays, injunctions, attachments and evidence-gathering under the FAA and CPLR
This Practice Note
This Practice Note reviews the availability of emergency and interim measures in aid of arbitration in New York, United States of America. New York is a jurisdiction supportive of arbitration, and its courts will, where warranted, issue emergency or interim relief to assist arbitral proceedings. Such relief can be pursued both before a claim is filed and during the pendency of the arbitration. The Note highlights the principal types of urgent remedies available under the United States Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), which governs arbitrations involving interstate or international commerce, together with New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, the procedural code applied in the state courts of New York. At the outset, turning to a court may not be required. Many arbitral institutions provide mechanisms enabling parties to seek urgent measures from the arbitral tribunal, or from an emergency arbitrator prior to the tribunal’s constitution (for example, article 29 and Appendix V of the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the ICC Rules)). If an emergency arbitrator grants relief, the order may later be amended...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
International commercial arbitral awards in New York (US): confirmation, vacatur and enforcement under the FAA and New York/Panama Conventions; stays, annulment, jurisdiction and forum non conveniens
Judicial enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in New York
Arbitration has emerged as the predominant means by which parties across the globe settle disputes outside the courts. It rests on the parties’ consent—express or implied—typically recorded in an arbitration clause within a private contract or a treaty. Even when parties choose to arbitrate, the courts remain vital to ensuring the process is effective. Crucially, they may compel a resistant party to arbitrate or to honour an arbitral award.
This Practice Note considers the judicial enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in New York. In New York, enforcement is usually straightforward. The federal courts there possess deep experience and expertise in enforcing international arbitral awards. In doing so, they apply a robust federal common law policy favouring arbitration. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985); Telenor Mobile Comms. AS v Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 405 (2d Cir. 2009). New York state law adopts a similarly pro-arbitration stance, but, for the reasons outlined below, most actions to enforce international awards are brought in the federal courts (see)...
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
United States class action arbitration: consent, class waivers, AAA/JAMS rules, key Supreme Court cases and current circuit splits on arbitrability and delegation
Class action litigation has long been a fixture of US courts, its modern trajectory often linked to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (Bazzle). US case law recognises that class disputes may proceed in arbitration where an arbitration agreement allows it. Persistent uncertainties remain, however, about what amounts to consent to class arbitration and whether that gateway issue is for a court or an arbitral tribunal to decide. Nevertheless, several prominent arbitral institutions have introduced rules addressing class arbitration. Note: the US judgments mentioned in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis UK.
What is class action dispute resolution?
Class actions were created to manage alike claims held by many claimants within a single proceeding. A representative plaintiff brings the case on behalf of others in comparable positions and applies to the court to ‘certify’ the matter as a class action. Certification is governed by established criteria and is generally warranted only where numerous claimants assert similar claims against the same defendant, and where issues common to the class are shown to ‘predominate’...
Arbitration
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
